Quincy Jones is expected to take the stand this week in his case against the Michael Jackson estate as the celebrated Grammy-award-winning 84-year-old producer seeks millions of dollars in royalties for his contributions to songs from albums such as Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and This Is It.
The jury for the case was excused on Monday (July 17) but was told to return on Tuesday as attorneys for both Jones and the Jackson estate spent the morning with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern. The legal teams mostly reviewed organizational items as they inch closer to hearing Jones’ testimony, which will likely be Thursday, according to a legal representative for the producer.
During Monday’s session with legal teams from each side, Stern asked Jones’ attorney, J. Michael Hennigan, why the case had come this far considering that his star client has had some of the best representation in the business. The biggest issue, the attorney said, was not having access to “audit material” and the results of that data.

Opposing counsel addressed the concern and indicated that providing the jury with that kind of information was misleading as Jones and his representatives had access to audits from CBS Records, now part of Sony, suggesting that the producer has had the ability to see what his legal team is claiming was not available to him previously.
Last week, Stern informed the jury that the trial might conclude by the end of this week instead of a full three weeks as originally estimated. Stern asked the Jones legal team on Monday if the producer would be available a day earlier, but it was established that Jones is returning from a long trip and will need time to rest and prepare for his day in court.
Jones’ legal team has publicly stated that their client is owned at least $30 million, but in the end it will be up to a jury of mostly women to decide.

In recent days Jones attended the Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland and on his social media accounts he also highlighted his Quincy Jones & Friendsshowcase on July 16 at the Jazz Open Stuttgart in Germany through photos and videos, which includes extended standing ovations.
In 2003, Jones sued MJJ Productions and Sony Music Entertainment, asserting that songs such as “Thriller” and "Billie Jean,” among others, were wrongly edited and remixed to exclude the prolific producer from backend profits and a producer’s fee. The lawsuit alleged that Jones’ contracts gave him the first option to re-edit or alter the songs as a way to protect his name.
More witnesses are expected to take the stand on Tuesday in support of Jones, but it is Jones’ actual testimony that will give the case momentum as the jury determines if he is eligible for a substantial payout.

7/18/2017 by Justino AguilaOn Day 6 of trial over missing royalties, Sony exec's testimony reveals producer's payout Since the death of pop star Michael Jackson in 2009, Quincy Jones has received nearly $18 million in royalties for his work on some of the King of Pop’s most iconic music, according to court testimony given by a high-ranking music executive on the sixth day of the trial between Jones and the Jackson estate.
Though the 84-year-old Jones, who is likely to take the stand on Thursday, claims that the Jackson estate owes him at least $30 million due to a breached contract for his work on albums Bad, Thriller, Off the Wall and This Is It, Sony's vp of royalty audits David Moro took the stand Tuesday (July 18) and spoke at length about the substantial royalties that Jones has already received from the label through the years, emphasizing payments issued since Jackson’s death 8 years ago.
Jones sued the estate and Sony Music in 2003, claiming that songs such as “Billie Jean,” “Thriller” and “Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough” were remixed to block him from royalties and a producer’s fee.
The legendary producer, who has been nominated 79 times for a Grammy, alleges that his contracts gave him the first option to re-edit or alter the songs, and that not having had that opportunity has hurt his reputation.
After the Jackson estate's legal team called Moro to the stand, attorney Tami Sims led Moro through series of back-to-back questions that established how much Jones has received, from smaller amounts in the range of $30,000 to much larger sums in the millions.
Moro explained that Jones was chiefly paid record royalties, not funds through a license agreement. The executive also explained that a “joint venture” agreement precluded Jones from receiving other monies.
“Mr. Jones is not a party to those agreements,” Moro said during his testimony. “Mr. Jones has never been paid under those agreements.”
When asked if Jones has previously requested audits, Moro confirmed that there had been “about 6” audits from 1981 through 1989. Additionally, there was a settlement totaling between $200,000 and $300,000 in recent years.
The jury was shown royalty summaries pertaining to Jones with one line item illustrating that Jones received nearly $18 million between 2009 and 2016.
More witnesses are expected to take the stand in Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern’s courtroom including Jones, who this week returned from work duties in Europe.

By Bonnie Eslinger
Law360, Los Angeles (July 18, 2017, 11:06 PM EDT) -- An entertainment attorney testifying Tuesday in Quincy Jones’ suit against a Michael Jackson company over $30 million in royalties for work on “Thriller” and other albums called it “outrageous” for the producer to expect ticket revenue from a posthumous movie and live shows featuring video of Jackson.
During the second week of the Los Angeles trial, defendants MJJ Productions Inc. called to the witness stand Owen J. Sloane of Eisner Jaffe, a contract attorney who told jurors he has represented such musical luminaries as Elton John, Chris Daughtry, Matchbox Twenty, Stevie Nicks and Kenny Rogers over the course of his 47-year career. Acting as MJJ Productions Inc.’s expert witness on music industry contracts, Sloane rejected many of Jones’ contract claims for compensation as atypical of industry practice.
That included telling the court that it would be “outrageous” and “absurd” for a producer like Jones to seek a share of box office receipts on top of royalties for “snippets” of music used in a film or live performance.
During cross examination, an attorney for Jones, Scott Cole of McKool Smith PC, noted that Sloane was there to testify about music industry custom and asked the defense expert “if he would agree” that Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones were “anything other than a standard, run of the mill” artist and producer. Sloane agreed.

He later asked Sloane about a provision in Jones' 1985 agreement with MJJ Productions for compensation when one of the master recordings he produced was used in "any audio visual presentation embodying” Jackson’s performance.
Cole asked Sloane to confirm that a documentary about Jackson’s life, "This Is It,” would qualify, since it incorporates hit songs from the albums produced by Jones and videos of the pop star before he died.
Sloane disagreed, maintaining that the phrase was meant to indicate music videos, not movies or live shows.
“To take that language and manipulate it to support your position is outrageous,” Sloane added.
Two live Cirque du Soleil shows that feature music from the three albums Jones produced and videos of Jackson also wouldn’t qualify, Sloane said.
Sloane also told jurors that even the master recording use fees given to Jones were not written into the producer’s contract — that according to the language, he was only to be paid based on record sales.
MJJ Productions attorney Zia Modabber of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP asked Sloane why he thought Jackson nonetheless gave that money to Jones.
“He thought it was fair,” Sloane said.
But Jones got greedy, Sloane insinuated, seeking more revenue, including a share of profits Jackson received by entering into a joint venture with Sony Music Entertainment.
Modabber asked Sloane what he thought, based on industry custom and practice, about a producer seeking a royalty increase when one is given to the musical artist.
Sloan said it would inappropriately allow the producer to “ride the coattails of the artist," adding that record companies expect artists to contribute something extra for an incremental increase in royalties.

During cross examination, Jones’ attorney asked Sloane if he knew of any situation in which there was a joint venture between a company and an artist that shares future project profits but also “subsumes all prior royalty rights.”
Sloane said he couldn’t think of any examples off the top of his head.
Cole also asked Sloane about his earlier representation that artists would need to “give to get” something additional from a record company. He asked the expert why he thought Jackson then gave Jones the allegedly undeserved master recording use fees.
Sloane said Jackson wasn’t a “big corporate giant,” and the agreement between the two men was about “two human beings dealing with one another.”

The trial kicked off July 11, with Jones' attorney Mike McKool of McKool Smith telling the 12-juror panel that under a deal worked out with Jackson, Jones received a portion of royalties that would be raised or lowered to the same degree as what Jackson received.

That changed after Jackson’s 2009 death, which sparked posthumous interest in the King of Pop’s music and increased sales, according to the attorney. Jackson’s estate negotiated a new deal with record label Sony Music Entertainment that provided a higher percentage of revenue to MJJ Productions from the albums and songs, but the increase wasn’t reflected in audit records provided to Jones, nor did the producer see a boost in his royalties, McKool said.

On Thursday, Modabber took his turn at questioning Jones’ damages expert, the producer’s accountant Gary Cohen, to ask why Jones hadn’t previously sought a share of profits from Jackson’s joint venture with Sony Music Entertainment, remixing opportunities and revenue from a posthumous documentary and two Cirque du Soleil shows featuring Jackson’s music.
“Your job is to pursue every dollar, correct?” Modabber asked.

Quincy Jones has been in the music business for 70 years, and he can't say exactly how many works he's composed or albums he's produced — but he does remember distinctly the moment he discovered his passion.
Wearing a grey suit, maroon shirt and black tie and vest, the 84-year-old producer told a jury that seeing a piano in an office he'd broken into with his friends changed his life. "I wanted to be a gangster until I was 11," Jones said. But, in that moment with his fellow "baby gangsters," he said every cell in his body told him music is what he'd do for the rest of his life.
Jones is suing MJJ Productions, a company controlled by Michael Jackson's estate. He says he's owed tens of millions, his share of posthumous profits resulting from the exploitation of songs he produced. The producer met the King of Pop while working on The Wiz, and went on to produce his first three solo albums, Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad.
He considered 800 songs for Thriller, he told his attorney Mike McKool in a crowded courtroom Thursday morning. After all, finding songs is a producer's number one job. "A great song can make the worst artist in the world a star," Jones said, adding that making music requires extreme love, respect and trust. "I've never in my life done a record for money or fame."
Peppered in the questions about his producer agreements with Jackson were colorful bits of music history. (Vincent Price recorded his "Thriller" monologue in just two takes.) There were also a surprising amount of jokes. When McKool asked if Jones could see Jackson's signature on one of the exhibits, the producer quipped "Ray Charles could see that."

When the questioning turned to the specifics of the contracts, the tension grew. Jones' attorneys argue his written agreements with Jackson clearly state that he's entitled to a share of licensing revenue when the songs he produced are used in films and other projects, while attorneys for MJJ argue the contracts make it clear Jones is only entitled to a share of record sales and anything he was paid beyond that was an act of kindness by Jackson.
Jones admitted he doesn't like contracts, and leaves handling the "legalese" to his lawyers — often signing an agreement having only seen the signature page.
Weitzman pressed Jones on the agreement, asking whether he feels entitled to a share of licensing even though MJJ's interpretation of the contracts means he's not legally entitled to it.
"Contract montract," said Jones. "If we made the record we deserve to get paid."
After discussion about how lucky the producer and artist were to work with each other, Weitzman turned to the music itself. He played Jackson's original demos of four songs, including "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," and then immediately followed with a clip of the final product.
Despite bobbing along to the music, Jones grew irritated.
"What's your point, Howard?" he asked. The point, although Weitzman didn't outright say it, was to show the jury the similarity between Jackson's pitch and the Jones-produced record in hopes that they'll attribute a larger percentage of the creation to the artist.
Jones says that Jackson "absolutely" did right by him creatively, but whether he did financially is open to debate. When asked why he didn't complain about his share of profits while the singer was alive Jones said, "I cared more about him as a human being than about the money."
Both sides rested Thursday afternoon following Jones' testimony. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning.

Jones, wearing a maroon shirt, black tie, gray suit and shaded glasses, repeatedly returned to a common refrain: he was only interested in the music and not the pieces of paper he’d signed to secure royalties.
When Weitzman asked the 84-year-old if he believed Jackson had done the right thing by him financially, Jones was forthright.
“That’s open for debate,” Jones said.Als Weitzmann den 84-jähringen fragte ob er glaube, dass Jackson ihn finanziell richtig behandelte antworte Jones.Das ist offen für eine Debatte.

In October 2013, Jones sued Jackson’s estate MJJ Productions and Sony Music Entertainment for breach of a Nov. 1, 1978, producer’s agreement, and a Dec. 1, 1985, producer’s agreement with the King of Pop.
In addition to the three albums, Jones also worked with Jackson on the 1978 movie “The Wiz” and Stephen Spielberg’s 1982 classic film “E.T.” he told the court.

Jones seeks $30 million in alleged unpaid royalties. During the trial in LA County Superior Court Judge Michael Stern’s courtroom downtown, jurors heard that Jones had received $18 million in compensation from the contracts.

If Michael Jackson could see that his longtime friend and collaborator Quincy Jones was suing him in court for millions of dollars, “Michael would be rolling over in his grave,” says entertainment attorney Howard Weitzman, whose team is representing the Jackson estate in the case."Michael würde sich im Grab umdrehen über das hier " sagt Weitzmann

Weitzman, along with attorney Zia Modabber, spoke with Billboard exclusively as they prepared to head to Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday to convince a jury in their closing arguments that Jones is not entitled to receive the additional $30 million he is seeking in royalties. The case pits the legendary 84-year-old producer against the estate of the King of Pop, who died eight years ago after his doctor administered a fatal cocktail of medications.

Jones, who testified in court last week, maintains that he’s owed the royalties for the use of the songs from Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and the film This Is It, among other projects. Jones has already received about $18 million in royalties since Jackson’s death, according to testimony given during the trial; his legal team did not respond to a request for comment.

Quincy Jones Takes the Stand in Michael Jackson Royalties Trial

But after nearly three weeks presenting a jury with evidence, testimony, music and line-by-line royalty summaries in an effort to prove that Jones is only entitled to a share of record sales, Weitzman says that he believes that the primary reason Jones is unhappy is because his name was left out of the credits for the film This Is It. The estate acknowledged that the omission was an error and said Jones received an apology.Weitzmann sagt, der primäre Grund warum Jones unglücklich ist, ist weil sein Name nicht als Credit unter dem TII-Film stand. Der Estate hat erklärt dies war ein Fehler und Jones erhielt eine Entschuldigung.

Weitzman and Modabber spoke to Billboard about the trial so far and what to expect from their closing argument Monday, which they promise will be “entertaining.”

What are your thoughts about the trial up to this point?Was sind Ihre Gedanken über diesen Prozess zu diesem Zeitpunkt?

Why didn't Jones get credit for the film This Is It?Warum bekam Jones keinen Credit für den TII-Film?
Weitzman: We made a mistake, to be that blunt. He wasn't involved in anything about the movie. Obviously he produced the masters in the late '70s and through the mid '80s on those three albums, Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad, and he's certainly entitled to credit as a producer on those masters. Yes, he should have gotten the credit, but I'm not sure how that gets you on a platform to jump off and file a lawsuit four years after Michael died and after This Is It was released. He basically suggested that he didn't care what the contract says and that he should [be part of] Michael's 1991 joint venture with Sony.Weitzmann: Wir haben eine Fehler gemacht um offen zu sein. Er war nicht mit irgendetwas im Film involviert. Offensichtlich produzierte er die Master der später 70er bis Mitte er 80er von den 3 Alben OTW, Thriller und Bad und er ist sicherlich berechtigt einen Credit zu bekommen als Produzent der Master. Ja wir hätten ihn ihm geben sollen, aber ich bin nicht sicher wie ihn das dazu berechtigt auf ein Plattform zu springen und eine Klage einzureichen Jahre nachdem Michael starb und der Film veröffentlicht wurde. Er sagt das er sich nicht kümmert was die Verträge sagen und das er hätte sein sollen Teil von Michael 1991er Joint Venture mit Sony.

Modabber: The movie This Is It was rehearsal footage [from Michael] that was never intended to be publicized. The vocals and the audio weren't perfect. Michael owned these master recordings and so they went to those recordings that he owned, and they were edited in bits and pieces in the movie to make it sound bettet.Modabber: Der TII-Film war Probematerial von Michael das niemals zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt war. Die Vokale und das Audit waren nicht perfekt. Michael besaß diese Master-Aufnahmen und so nahmen sie die Aufnahmen, die er besitzt und sie wurden editiert in Stücke um es besser im Film klingen zu lassen.

Quincy Jones Earned $18 Million in Royalties Since Michael Jackson's Death

Modabber: He got paid his fees using the exact same formula that is always used when masters that a producer produces are used in a movie. He got paid for Michael's masters being in the movie, something like $400,000 or $500,000, but he [Jones] has learned through this lawsuit that the estate has made something like $90 million and we think he's really upset that the estate made all this money, and he and his lawyers don't seem to have the ability to comprehend that the contributions of those masters for that movie is really a tiny little piece of what it was.Modabber: Er wurde bezahlt auf der gleichen Formel wie immer wenn die Masters in dem Film verwendet wurden, die er produziert hat. Ihm wurden für Michaels Masters, die ihm Film waren zwischen 400000 und 500000 Dollar gezahlt, aber Jones hat durch seine Klage erfahren das der Estate in etwa 90 Mio. vom Film einnahm und er ist wirklich wütend, dass der Estate all dieses Geld gemacht hat und er und seine Anwälte sehen nicht, dass die Nutzung der Masters in dem Film nur ein kleiner Beitrag dazu ist was den Film ausmachte.

Weitzman: What we [the estate] are supposed to do is exploit the assets post death, and we got pretty lucky with This Is It and who knew? But it wasn't about the music. It was about Michael. Nobody would be buying tickets to the theater to listen to snippets of the masters.Weitzmann: Der Estate ist dazu da um den Besitz nach dem Tod zu erhöhen und wir waren sehr glücklich mit TII und wer weiß? Aber es ging nicht um die Musik. Es ging um Michael. Niemand würde Tickets kaufen und in ein Kino gehen um zu Snippets von Masteters anzuhören.

Modabber: Take a step back and think about how much of that money is attributable to the snippets of the masters. The testimony came in that they paid a little over $4 million for all the masters in the movie. Quincy Jones is not the producer on all the masters. He's the producer on two-thirds of the masters. He gets his producer's share, which is a fraction. He doesn't get all that money. The money goes to the owner of the masters and Sony. Sony Music is the distributor. That is a truckload of money for one producer to make for snippets. It's the most amount of money that has ever been paid for master-use fees, maybe in the history of movies.Modabber: Geh einen Schritt zurück und denke darüber nach wie weil vom dem Geld geht zurück auf Nutzung von Snippets von Masters. Die Aussage kam, dass sie ein wenig über 4 Mio. für die Mastern im Film zahlten. Quincy Jones ist nicht der Produzent aller Masters. Er ist Produzent von 2/3 der Masters. Er bekam seinen Produzentenanteil, der ein Teil davon ist. Er bekam nicht das ganze Geld. Das geht zum Besitzer der Masters (Michael) und Sony. Sony ist Vertreiber. Das ist ein Haufen Geld für eine Produzenten für Snippets. Es ist der größte Betrag der jemals gezahlt wurde für die Master-Nutzungs-Gebühren wahrschein in der Geschichte von Filmen.

Weitzman: Quincy Jones had the right to audit the record company directly for his producer royalties and he has done that for decades and it's always been worked out. That audit process was started before this lawsuit was started and the record company has calculated that Quincy has been underpaid by just under $400,000. In the real world when a record company says, "Okay we found these mistakes," and it's $400,000, it probably settles for a little bit more than that. Maybe it settles for $500,000 or $600,000 or $700,000. We told the jury that mistakes were made and he's owed some money. You've got a guy with a zillion different records sold in a zillion different ways in a zillion different places. Mistakes were made. It's the record business, but nobody is fighting about that. [Music attorney] John [Branca] testified that he told Howard to go offer him $2 or $3 million, five times what the record company found that he was owed by these mistakes and that was not good enough.Weitzmann: Quincy Jones hat das Recht Audits direkt mit der Plattenfirma zu machen zu seinen Royalities und er hat das seit Jahrzehnten gemacht und es wurde immer ausgehandelt. Der Audit_prozess wurde gestartet vor seiner Klage und die Plattenfirma hat kalkuliert das Jones unterbezahlt wurde für nur 400000 Dollar in der realen Welt sagt die Firma: "Okay wir haben Fehler gemacht" und es sind 400000 Dollar, es wird wahrscheinlich eine Einigung für etwas mehr getroffen. Vielleicht 500000 Doller bis 700000 Dollar. Wir haben der Jury gesagt das Fehler gemacht wurden und es steht im etwas Geld zu. Du hast einen Kerl mit Zillionen verschiedenen Platten verkauft in verschieden Wegen und Zillionen Plätzen Fehler wurden gemach. Es ist die Plattenindustrie, aber niemand bekriegt sich darüber. Musik-Anwalt John Branca sagte gegenüber Howard aus, dass sie im 20 bis 3 Mio. boten, 5-mal mehr als was die Plattenfirma ermittelt hat als ausstehenden Betrag, aber es war nicht gut genug.

How much has the estate made since Michael's death?Wie viel hat der Estate seit Michaels Tod verdient?

Modabber: On top of paying all of the debt.Modabber: Zusätzlich zum Zahlen aller Schulden

His children benefit from that?Seine Kinder sind die Begünstigen davon?

Weitzman: They are the only beneficiaries.Weitzmann: Sie sind die einzigen Begünstigten.

How is the family dealing with this case?Wie geht die Familie mit dem Fall um?

The family is not involved because they are not beneficiaries although part of the estate's responsibility is to take care of Mrs. Jackson for her life, which we do. The children don't really know Mr. Jones and they are just aghast but they are not really involved because they didn't deal with him, and they were young when the This Is It film was made.Die Familie ist nicht involviert, weil sie keine Begünstigten sind, obwohl der Estate Verantwortung trägt für das Wohlergehen von Mrs. Jackson in ihrem Leben, was wir tun. Die KInder kennen Mr. Jones nucht wirklich und sie sind nur informiert aber nicht wirklich involviert weil sie nicht mit ihm zu tun hatten und sie waren jung als der TII-Film gemacht wurde.

Weitzman: If it's zero the only impact is that we had to spend money for the lawyers to defend the case and go through the aggravation and anxiety. If he gets [major] money obviously there is a process post-trial, and we'll take advantage of all that, and sometime in the future if there is no relief there, then he'll get paid.

How do you want Michael Jackson to be remembered?Wie möchten Sie das Michael Jackson in Erinnerung bleibt?

Weitzman: I want him to continue to be remembered as one of the great musical entertainers of all time.Weitzmann: ich möchte das er weiterhin als einer der größten Entertainer aller Zeiten in Erinnerung bleibt.

Modabber: That sums it up.Modabber: Das fasst es zusammen

How are you preparing for the closing arguments?Wie bereiten Sie sich für das Abschlussplädoyer vor?

Weitzman: We don't want to share that ... we would like a element of surprise. Zia and I are going to split up the argument, but let me say this: it will be entertainingWeitmann: Wir wollen das nicht mitteilen.....wir wollen ein Element der Überraschung lassen. Zia und ich werden die Argumentation aufteilen, aber lassen Sie mich sagen: es wird unterhaltsam

Talk of "word games" dominated closing arguments in the royalties trial between Quincy Jones and a company owned by Michael Jackson's estate — and a jury of 10 women and two men will soon have to define terms like "record" and "videoshow" to determine how much money, if any, the producer is owed.

Jones sued MJJ Productions in 2013, claiming that after the King of Pop's death Jones was shorted tens of millions in royalties and wrongfully denied the opportunity to remix works he created with the artist. The estate says some run of the mill accounting errors did cause Jones to be shorted, but he's owed about $392,000 — not the $30 million he's asking for.

Closing arguments ended just before lunch Monday in a crowded downtown courtroom. So crowded, in fact, the legal teams used "seat fillers" to make sure all of their people had a seat — leaving several members of the press hunkered near the entrance, pressed up against a wall to avoid the judge's line of sight. The courtroom assistant warned that if the judge saw them peeking around the corner, he'd kick them out.

Jones attorney Scott Cole led off closings by telling the jury the case was about two men and "the landmark music they created." He described MJJ's defense as nothing more than "word games and loopholes" and emphasized that this is the first time in a seven-decade career that Jones has ever filed a lawsuit.

Because the dispute centers on two contracts, the 1978 and 1985 producer agreements between Jones and Jackson, the precise definitions of words are key. Under the deals, Jones is entitled to a share of record royalties from Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad. The parties dispute whether Jones should share in the profits from Jackson's 1991 joint venture with Sony, and whether he should share in net profits from movies instead of licensing fees from the songs used in them.

Jones argues that the This is It documentary counts as a "videoshow" under his contract, and he's entitled to a share of net receipts. Meanwhile, MJJ says the term is used for things like music videos and isn't relevant here.

The jury will also have to decide what it means to "remix" a song. Jones says his contract gives him right of first refusal to remix any of the works he produced for Jackson, while MJJ says that right was limited to remixes ordered by Sony (then Epic) at the time the albums were being produced.

Modabber reiterated that the Sony joint venture was announced in the early '90s, and Jones didn't complain about his stake until two decades later. He also notes that Jackson's death has been lucrative for the producer. In the two years prior to his June 25, 2009, passing, Jones made $3 million from his share of their works. In the two years after Jackson's death, Jones made $8 million.

While reminding the jury that Jackson isn't here to defend himself, Modabber imagined the artist would say to Jones, "You didn't make me."

When Weitzman took over, he turned the focus to the words Jones used during his testimony. Specifically, he questioned Jones' claim that he doesn't care about the contract and isn't bringing this case because of money. He also said that allowing Jones to claim a share of net receipts on the documentary would be like telling the theater audience that, when they bought their tickets, they really bought a record.

Weitzman also reminded the jury that Jones has cashed $18 million in checks since Jackson's death and continues to be paid per MJJ's interpretation of their deal. He then asked the jury to send Jones a message: "You don't deserve a raise. You can't have any more of Michael Jackson's money."

Jones attorney Mike McKool picked back up for his team, and pointed out that Jackson's estate has made about half a billion in profits since the artist died. "This is a lot of money," he told the jury. "We all know that."

Both sides point to a jury instruction about how to interpret the terms in a contract, and, interestingly, both say it is an asset to their respective arguments. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern read it as part of jury instructions just after the lunch recess. In short, he told jurors that in order to interpret what the words in a contract mean, they can consider the actions of the parties from the time that it was signed until the moment the dispute began. So how the jurors feel Jones, Jackson and MJJ treated the business relationship from 1985 until 2013 will likely be a key factor in their decision.

Stern also reminded the jurors that they only need to decide whether an allegation is "more likely to be true than untrue" and nine jurors out of 12 must agree on each question on the verdict form before moving on to the next. Deliberations began at approximately 2:30 p.m.

July 26, 2017 | 04:58PM PT
Veteran music producer Quincy Jones prevailed on Wednesday in his dispute over unpaid royalties with the estate of Michael Jackson.

A Los Angeles jury awarded Jones $9.42 ($9,423,695) million in damages, finding that he had been underpaid in royalties for music used in the “This Is It” documentary and two Cirque du Soleil shows.
Related
Quincy Jones
Quincy Jones Testifies Against Michael Jackson Estate: ‘I Was Cheated Out of a Lot of Money’

Jones first sued in 2013, alleging that he was unfairly cut out of posthumous deals by Jackson’s estate to feature his music in the 2009 film and the Cirque shows. He said he was owed $30 million.

During the two-week trial, attorneys for both sides quibbled over how to interpret contract language that governed how Jones’ royalties were calculated.

Jones took the witness stand last week — entering the courtroom in a wheelchair — to explain his views on how he was “cheated out of a lot of money” by the Jackson estate. At issue was the interpretation of two contracts for the albums “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad.” Jones’ lawyers contended that his contracts entitle him to significant proceeds from “This Is It,” the backstage concert film released after Jackson’s death, as well as those from two Cirque du Soleil shows.

Related
Quincy Jones Trial
Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson’s Estate Duel Over Contract Wording in Royalties Trial
In handing down their verdict, the jury did not redefine what a “record” is. On the question of whether the Cirque shows or “This Is It” were considered “records,” the jury said no. As to what comprises a “video show” — “This Is It” is applicable, but not the Cirque performances.

Representing the Jackson estate, Howard Weitzman argued that Jackson himself made major contributions to the sound of each song, which rankled Jones, who testified that producers often take the blame for failures while artists get credit for hits.

Currently, the court is polling the jury on how they each answered the 28-question verdict form.

Following the verdict, Jones released the following statement:
“As an artist, maintaining the vision and integrity of one’s creation is of paramount importance. I, along with the team I assembled with Michael, took great care and purpose in creating these albums, and it has always given me a great sense of pride and comfort that three decades after they were originally recorded, these songs are still being played in every corner of the world. This lawsuit was never about Michael, it was about protecting the integrity of the work we all did in the recording studio and the legacy of what we created. Although this judgement is not the full amount that I was seeking, I am very grateful that the jury decided in our favor in this matter. I view it not only as a victory for myself personally, but for artists’ rights overall.”

A California jury on Wednesday ordered Michael Jackson’s production company to pay mega-producer Quincy Jones more than $9.4 million in royalty damages for his work on the blockbuster albums “Thriller,” Bad” and “Off the Wall,” agreeing that the company shorted him while declining to award the full $30 million Jones sought. The jury of 10 women and two men deliberated for more than two days before reaching its verdict, following a nearly two-week trial. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame producer filed suit in 2013, saying the company controlled by Jackson’s estate had breached long-standing contracts after the singer’s death, when interest in the King of Pop’s music surged.

The jury in Quincy Jones’ breach-of-contract case against the Michael Jackson Estate awarded him $9.4m Wednesday (7/26), a sliver of the $30m he sought, but it appears even that award will be subject to challenge.
The jury, the Estate believes, was unqualified to rule on contractual matters and the judge should not have empowered them to interpret clauses that their verdict shows they didn’t understand. One example regards remixes, in which the CBS/Epic first-crack obligation supposedly owed to Jones for requested re-recordings was erroneously applied to projects like the film This Is It and Cirque du Soleil’s Jackson-themed stage productions, which were overseen by the Estate and had nothing to do with the label. How much of Jones’ award might be set aside on appeal?

VENICE, Italy – As expected, the Michael Jackson estate is appealing the verdict which in July awarded $9.4 million to music producer Quincy Jones in damages for allegedly unpaid royalties. John Branca, co-executor of the late singer’s estate, expects the case to go back in front of a jury “in the next couple of months.”

In an interview with Variety during the Venice Film Festival, where a new 3-D version of the 1983 “Thriller” video directed by John Landis world-premiered Monday, Branca said that “fairly serious errors were made in the trial.”"vielfache ernsthafte Fehler wurden beim Prozess gemacht" so Branca.

The verdict in Quincy’s favor, in a Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 26, revolved around alleged breach of contract over agreements signed in the 1970s and ’80s, when Jones and Jackson worked on three records – “Off the Wall,” “Thriller” and “Bad” – which collectively have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. Jones said during the trial that the master recordings for those albums were improperly remixed to deprive him of royalties and production fees that he was entitled to.

The dispute largely concerns profits from the concert film “This Is It,” the world’s highest-grossing concert film.

The Jackson estate says that an accounting error did cause Jones to miss out on some royalties, but put that figure at roughly $392,000 – a tiny fraction of both the $30 million that the producer sought and the $9.4 million that the jury ultimately awarded him.